1inch Network Treasury

You guys forget that Most of the People are left out of Governance Voting Anyway .

@Natalia @Tanz0rz @k06a @deacix Status on 1INCH LP tokens to be included in Voting ?

All 3 Solutions that you have outlined , you know they can be easily manipulated & Voting Power granted to Whales . 90% Governance Voting system RN works this way , Which is sad but true .

Delegation + Proof of Care + Reputation is a new concept tho

1 Like

You guys forget that Most of the People are left out of Governance Voting Anyway …
Status on 1INCH LP tokens to be included in Voting ?

That’s a fair point that touches on a couple different topics @Roxan . This proposal implies that un-staked 1INCH will no longer be allowed to vote. I’m assuming that is because unstaked 1INCH is considered to be held by speculators, while staked 1INCH is assumed to be held by people who are bullish on the long-term value of 1INCH and 1inch protocol.

I would argue that people providing liquidity for 1INCH should also be considered longterm holders and should be given equal voting power to 1inch stakers.

All 3 Solutions that you have outlined , you know they can be easily manipulated & Voting Power granted to Whales

In the fist solution I recommend that unvested 1INCH would not be able to vote – so, I don’t see how it grants voting power to whales (i see it preventing just that).


In an earlier comment you shared this concern:

  1. VCs have too much power in voting why are they given these right to vote when you know that they’re not an individual but entire company ? Isn’t that possess a manipulation in gov system ?

My comment is voicing pretty much the exact same concern as you are – I just went through the numbers to show everyone how much voting power the Backers would really have (more than the combined voting power of 1INCH currently in circulation).


I think the question of who should be able to vote is huge. Definitely big enough for its own thread. Maybe we should consider breaking it out of this proposal and dealing with it separately?

I was curious to see if the 1Inch Community would want to diversify it’s treasury with the BED Index and if treasury diversification to some degree makes sense.

2 Likes

@Genkai.Shogun Hi,bro.what’s happening? I’d like to hear your opinion! :nerd_face:

1 Like

it does make sense, once/if the Treasury gets deployed, there will be numerous possibilities of how the community will be able to diversify the funds, personally, I’d like to see more strategic investments like BED Index

4 Likes

thanks for the feedback!

just a side note - the distribution ratio isn’t fixed (the percentage is just an example of how the community can set it up through the Instant Governance Tier 1)

Perhaps this my clarification will annul some of the questions

1 Like

There are two major components of this proposal:

  1. The proposed treasury scheme
    • This seems to have a lot of support
  2. The proposed revision to who has voting power – allowing unvested 1INCH to vote.
    • This seems to be a little controversial

What do you all think about breaking this into two separate proposals when we move to formalize these into 1IPs? Since the two things aren’t necessarily related to each other, this would allow the community to vote on them individually. Any drawbacks to this approach?

Dao can decide things like tier 2 trading components and also the limit to the burning requirements

Yes, I understand that the DAO will ultimately control the treasury – so they’re related in that sense (who has the power to vote is related to everything DAO related).

However, the point I was trying to make is: since both aspects of the proposal (treasury scheme and voting power) can stand independently of each other, it would make for a cleaner voting process if we vote on them individually rather than lump in in as a single 1IP.

I completely agree. Proposals should be designed with a focus on a single feature or change. This will allow the community to have more nuanced discussions as well as more conviction when it comes time to vote.

With how the current proposal is laid out, we may want to actually have three separate proposals:

  1. Create the 1inch Treasury (dedicated fund designed to accrue value from protocol use)
  2. Utilize a USDT/USDC trading pool to earn yield on the newly-founded Treasury
  3. Update the Snapshot voting to use staked and unvested 1INCH tokens for voting power instead of the current design (1INCH and staked 1INCH).

In this example, proposal 2 is obviously blocked on proposal 1, but the net benefit of this will be for the community to understand what the Treasury is, what knobs there will be to turn in the future, and how the funds can be explicitly accessed and altered by the DAO. All of that can be formalized separately from the strategy for earning yield on the underlying funds.

2 Likes

Proposals should be designed with a focus on a single feature or change. This will allow the community to have more nuanced discussions as well as more conviction when it comes time to vote.

I think that is really key to having productive discussions in any DAO. There have been some really great ideas buried in threads because there are too many conversations going on at once. If we can focus on stand-alone ideas, then it’ll be a lot easier to gauge the community’s sentiment, and it’ll ultimately streamline the process of formalizing the idea into a 1IP and getting a proper vote on it!

1 Like

Diversification is the need . There’s no question & we can learn that from polychain Exploit on how Tether blocked the money . That seems like a straight threat to Treasury RN

1 Like

Lovely! Can’t wait for this great proposal to be implemented!

2 Likes

When we can move to stage-2? @Natalia

They perhaps do it but we should also keep in mind that both those Stable Coins come under regulatory framework & It seems like 1INCH in no way want to mess up with U.S. laws at 1st place which puts 1inch in Safe Position IMO
These Stable coins can freeze coins in events of unlawful & illicit activities but if 1INCH is obliged & in accordance with all rules & file petition into the Court of LAW . They’ll come out CLEAN & unharmed.


I think @Natalia Has done a Wonderful job in connecting all the pieces together & Converting it into a Simple & Easy to understand proposal . Huge Thanks to her :raised_hands:

Diversification of Treasury is something that we have discussed in depth during Anton Bukov post

Things I wanna see to implement on the 1INCH Treasury is its Unlimited Potential & benefit not only to Governance stakers but also to the DEFI space as whole .

The Gates of Treasury should be opened to Normal/Instituitional investors too where we can charge sometype of fee [ Voted by Instant Gov ] on top of it which then can be reinvested into the Treasury .

The Tier - 2 30% Burn can be remodeled into some High APY pools & farms to Maximize the Treasury Revenue & a user can also fund treasury with one1INCH stable coin

Restructuring the Tier - 1 Referral System into more Efficient Dyanmic Referral %Age system where the Downline of the users has to keep them engaged into DEX activity otherwise the Upline Tier will start reducing . Remaining funds should be reinvested into treasury .

DAO Power Distribution :

Community 40%
Contributors 20%
Advisors 20%
VC 20%

Contributors will have either Delegation or a Reputation system . They will have Skin in the Game .
Let’s say a Tie happens b/w Community (40%) to Advisors + VC (40%) , Final Blow will come into Hands of Contributors & Veto Power in Hands of Founders .


Controlled & Triggered Burning of Tokens Governed by DAO & Tier - 1 Instant Governance

e.g

Milestone Burning : 1INCH surpassed 80 Billion in Volume recently so next burn can activate on 90 Billion . Decided by Insta Governance

After Every 10% Burn of Total Supply , Burn Trigger System will go under A Cool down until DAO redecides above criteria/parameters again .

4 Likes

1inch is about to change, 1inch time! :nerd_face: :nerd_face: :nerd_face:

3 Likes

Are we having potential airdrop to BSC users on $1inch?